It depends on how you vote. If you vote to suppress someone else's rights then it is wrong. I can understand why people would vote as a form of self defense, but I think it is ineffective and legitimizes the system.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It depends on how you vote. If you vote to suppress someone else's rights then it is wrong. I can understand why people would vote as a form of self defense, but I think it is ineffective and legitimizes the system.Would you please make up your mind? First you said:
Then you changed your mind:
Now you're back to the first position again. Which is it?
In my opinion the only thing that would work is blatant disobedience and/or revolution.So what will increase liberty? How many more books do we have to write before we see any progress? Murray Rothbard wrote countless works in his lifetime, but there was never any libertarian revolution. Ron Paul ran for president and the liberty movement exploded. Between voting and not voting, the empirical evidence is clear on what works better.
I didn't say they were thrilled with it, I said they didn't view taxation is wrong. I'm not thrilled with having to attend school or work, but I don't view it as wrong.
I highly doubt that, and I'd question the wisdom of such an action. This ideological purity nonsense reminds me so much of the Pharisees and it's an attitude I can't stand:To all people who are sending me evidence of Rand Pauls various heresies, you can save your bandwidth. Im not interested in saint making or witch burning. Im only interested in one thing: progressive reductions of the role of all government power in peoples lives all the way to zero if possible. Whatever brings that about, in whatever sector it happens, and whether it happens slowly by steps or all in one fell swoop, Im for it. I really dont care who or what makes a contribution to this end or how it comes about, so long as it is ethical and it actually achieves the aim of human liberation, the mother of all progress, order, and higher civilization. (source)We should realize that people are neither saints nor witches and accept their imperfects. Treating everyone who's less than a saint as a witch is no way to act.
Btw why is right-violating behavior your cut off line? Why isn't other immoral activity enough to stop you from working with people?
It can't both be self-defense and legitimizes the system, otherwise shooting a would-be murderer would legitimize murder. You're aruging againist Lysander Spooner, since his whole piont is that voting doesn't legitimize the system.It depends on how you vote. If you vote to suppress someone else's rights then it is wrong. I can understand why people would vote as a form of self defense, but I think it is ineffective and legitimizes the system.
Lol! No, it wouldn't. All that would result is a lot of dead bodies. The American Revolution was a rare moment in history that allowed such a rebellion against a powerful empire, a moment that will never come again. That, I can tell you, is way more statistically implausible than voting could ever be.In my opinion the only thing that would work is blatant disobedience and/or revolution.
What does this have to do with anything? My point is that people can not be thrilled about something and still think it morally permissible and/or necessary.You don't have to attend school or work, you choose to.
Motives are everything when judging morality, unless you're a utilitarian. As I said, the action might be wrong, but that doesn't impute anything to the person if they're ignorant. If all that matters is the outcome, then I hope you're not against government price floors that are set below the market price, since the outcome is the exactly the same whether they're there or not.If someone shoots me I could care less whether or not it is intentional. Motives are irrelevent. The only thing that is relevent is the outcome of peoples' actions.
Let me try to find a better way to word it. I can understand how people feel voting is a form of self-defense. However, I do not think it is an effective form of self-defense. When talking about voting I am speaking about individuals, not society as a whole. It does not make sense for one individual to vote when that vote is not going to make a difference. Now if no one else votes then it would make sense because it has a 100% chance of making a difference. If 3 people vote it is probably still worth it because of the odds. If 10 million people vote it is no longer worth it unless you place an unusually high value on the act of voting itself. Absolute freedom is my ultimate goal, and I will not settle for anything less. To summarize Patrick Henry, the only options are liberty or death.It can't both be self-defense and legitimizes the system, otherwise shooting a would-be murderer would legitimize murder. You're aruging againist Lysander Spooner, since his whole piont is that voting doesn't legitimize the system.
Or, to use Rothbard's example, if chattel slaves were given the chance to vote for a new master every few years, would it be legitimizing slavery if they voted for a master who, say, was against whipping slaves?
The outcome of anything related to government is violence, so I am automatically opposed.Lol! No, it wouldn't. All that would result is a lot of dead bodies. The American Revolution was a rare moment in history that allowed such a rebellion against a powerful empire, a moment that will never come again. That, I can tell you, is way more statistically implausible than voting could ever be.
What does this have to do with anything? My point is that people can not be thrilled about something and still think it morally permissible and/or necessary.
Motives are everything when judging morality, unless you're a utilitarian. As I said, the action might be wrong, but that doesn't impute anything to the person if they're ignorant. If all that matters is the outcome, then I hope you're not against government price floors that are set below the market price, since the outcome is the exactly the same whether they're there or not.
And again, the exact same thing can be said for anything you do. If you do want to rebel against the government, how effective do you think your efforts are going to be in that? Way less effective than you would be voting.Let me try to find a better way to word it. I can understand how people feel voting is a form of self-defense. However, I do not think it is an effective form of self-defense. When talking about voting I am speaking about individuals, not society as a whole. It does not make sense for one individual to vote when that vote is not going to make a difference. Now if no one else votes then it would make sense because it has a 100% chance of making a difference. If 3 people vote it is probably still worth it because of the odds. If 10 million people vote it is no longer worth it unless you place an unusually high value on the act of voting itself.
Who said anything about settling? You can still celebrate reductions in tyranny now and continue to work towards completely eliminating it. Like Thomas Jefferson said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.Absolute freedom is my ultimate goal, and I will not settle for anything less.
Then why don't you go attack the government right now? If you don't want to take steps to get to liberty, but want it all at once, you shouldn't be waiting around for others to join you, but start your revolution right away.To summarize Patrick Henry, the only options are liberty or death.
There's no violence when no one would even violate the policy even if they wanted to. No bad outcomes occur when the price floor is below the market price.The outcome of anything related to government is violence, so I am automatically opposed.
Sorry to but in; I'm an independent researcher doing a survey on political attitudes and faith. If any of you have 10-15 minutes to spare, I'd greatly appreciate it. Just type "https://" before this fragment: qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6Xp6la8N62ow9Ux
All responses are recorded confidentially; I can't even see your IP addresses. I'm much obliged to you!
Very best,
J.D. Henson, Principal Researcher
Interesting. I don't know many Christians who are Libertarians. It would seem that most are Republicans.
Many of us are small-L libertarians and not necessarily members of the Libertarian Party.
The Bible is vehemently anti-state, though. Somehow the Christian Right has convinced themselves that they should enforce Christian morality through the state (as has the Christian Left, in the form of mandatory charity).
Here are some anti-state things from the Bible:
- There was no state in the garden, the state is dependent on there having been a fall of man.
- In the early days Israel had no government, everyone just followed God's commands. Here's what God thought of Israel demanding a king:
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel to Ramah. 5 They said to him, Behold, you are old, and your sons dont walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us.
Samuel prayed to Yahweh. 7 Yahweh said to Samuel, Listen to the voice of the people in all that they tell you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me as the king over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, in that they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so they also do to you. 9 Now therefore listen to their voice. However you shall protest solemnly to them, and shall show them the way of the king who will reign over them.
10 Samuel told all Yahwehs words to the people who asked him for a king. 11 He said, This will be the way of the king who shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them as his servants, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint them to him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will assign some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 He will take your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, even their best, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take one tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give it to his officers, and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants, your female servants, your best young men, and your donkeys, and assign them to his own work. 17 He will take one tenth of your flocks; and you will be his servants. 18 You will cry out in that day because of your king whom you will have chosen for yourselves; and Yahweh will not answer you in that day.
19 But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, No; but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. - 1 Samuel 8:4-20 WEB (emphasis mine)
42 Jesus summoned them, and said to them, You know that they who are recognized as rulers over the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you, but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant. 44 Whoever of you wants to become first among you, shall be bondservant of all. 45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. - Mark 10:42-45 WEB
- Also this:
Also, pretty much all of the verses that Christians quote in support of the state just tell us that we have to obey the state, which Christian libertarians agree with. Christian libertarians do not (or at least should not, some of them might) support the use of violence or overthrow against the government, and do not support the violation of the government's laws unless those laws force one to do something that violates God's commands for us. So, there is nothing to support the idea that government exists to enforce Christian morality and actually a lot of Scripture to support the idea of limiting government.
I do see how the Bible may be anti-state, but Ancient Israel was a very authoritarian society.
Israel, however, seemed to be more of a centralized church than a nation. Just like today's church. The New Covenant may have abolished the state at least temporarily until the Christians are reunited in the Millennial Kingdom at end of the age.
I was a Postmill Presby in my years as a Christian. I don't know too much about covenant theology, but ancient Israel was definitely a church-state.
Interesting. I don't know many Christians who are Libertarians. It would seem that most are Republicans.
I try to warn Christian's about this. I believe that Christianity will see a decline in the United States like the rest of the first world. Many Christian's have taken the violent statist reactionary stance to trying to stop these issues. Unfortunately by doing so they are legitimizing the initiation of state violence in the minds of the younger less religious generations. Unfortunately I that could come back to bite us, as the vitriol I see spewed by younger people online is concerning.Somehow the Christian Right has convinced themselves that they should enforce Christian morality through the state (as has the Christian Left, in the form of mandatory charity).
Does anyone else watch The Independents on Fox Business? It's a new show featuring 3 libertarians as co-hosts. Stossel is on Fox Business too; I feel like Fox Business is more and more a libertarian network.
Not really true of the 'evangelical' denominations any more. As of late they tend to keep their politics to themselves. Of course here in Western Pennsylvania the Democrats are more life style conservative than most Republicans. The late Tom Clancy once referred to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party as the most complex political organism on the face of the earth in one of his Jack Ryan novels.If you look outside of conservative evangelicalism, such as in the mainstream denominations, you will find just as many, maybe even more, liberals and Democrats than conservatives and Republicans.
But even here on CF, a conservative evangelical stronghold, I see plenty of other Libertarian icons besides my own.
No, I hadn't seen that one, though I do watch FBN. Must be because it;s new. Thanks for the heads up!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?